Re: 185:7: VALID, -0.2

From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Sat Jun 01 2002 - 14:53:01 PDT


"Alan Riddell" <peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> We need more rules, who cares if they are valid or not... FRC members who
> have not posted a rule this round (by the time I have posted this) are
> clearly Far to Righteous and Conceited to post rules. They worry to much
> about their "style"... Pah! WHO CARES ABOUT STYLE??????   As such any future
> rule they do post can only be VALID if the style points awarded for that
> rule are negative.

JUDGEMENT: No problems.  We still have only one rule that restricts
other rules, and its restriction does not apply here.

STYLE: "by the time I have posted this" is ambiguous; was this rule
posted by the time it was posted?  We will assume it was not;
therefore in order to judge it VALID (as I must) it must have negative
style.  The only style complaint I can come up with, though, is the
multiple misuse of "to" instead of "too", for which one can hardly
dock more than 0.2 points.  Nice attempt at defamation, too, though
proving it false will be difficult.

--
- Rich Holmes
  Syracuse, NY

--
Rule Date: 2002-06-01 21:53:14 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST